A Tale of 2 Impeachments

Now that Trump has been acquitted again in yet another Impeachment trial, are we finally going to stop hearing this “both sides of the aisle” trope that pretends our democracy is some 50/50 partnership?

Despite the well-meaning M.O. and idealistic aspirations Democrats have of “working with both sides of the aisle,” it’s not working out that way. It’s not happening. That’s because Republicans don’t want to work with Democrats. NEWSFLASH TO DEMS: They’re not even trying to work with you. Period. Haven’t you figured that out by now?

Didn’t you Democrats finally realize that during the second Impeachment trial? All signs point to NO, you guys didn’t get it. For busy readers and public servants who just don’t have the time — or the perception — to see what was going on right in front of your very eyes, here’s what happened in a nutshell.

As usual Trump lied. At his second impeachment trial, of course, he also paid lawyers to lie for him. Under these proceedings, however, lying is seriously frowned upon by Congress. Among the many fibs in question were the assertions that Trump didn’t know Vice President Pence’s life was in mortal danger and didn’t know the march on the Capitol was turning into a destructive and deadly insurrection. Not true. Trump’s phone conversation with Congressman Kevin McCarthy contradicted this claim. In fact what McCarthy later told a Republican Congresswoman about this conversation directly refuted what then President Trump and his lawyers were telling Congress. Aha!

So another member of Congress could have actually refuted the version of events officially presented by Trump, et. al. The Congresswoman could have testified, giving a reliable, credible narrative for the record. But it didn’t happen.

Of course it didn’t happen. Not when you have U.S. Representatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene churning out ominous tweets designed to intimidate the congresswoman who could have testified against Trump. Not when senators like Ted Cruz who were supposed to be “unbiased” met and consulted with Trump’s attorneys before the trial had ended, before any verdict had actually been reached. Not when Republicans who could have given a guilty verdict refused to indict Trump simply because he was a Republican. Not when so many Republicans were trying to protect one of their own.

Later on, in televised interviews, Delegate Stacey Plaskett(US Virgin Islands), who worked as one of the House Managers during the trial, shared a disturbing yet predictable story. She said that during the trial, Republicans would congratulate her after her presentation.They’d tell her she was doing a great job presenting the evidence. They’d say they completely agreed with her: Trump had violated his oath of office and should be impeached. Then they’d admit they weren’t going to convict him.

So they believed he was guilty — before the trial was even over — but decided they were going to acquit this guilty Ex-President. Why?

The old familiar GOP double-standard rides again.

It’s been going on for years in this little political cult called the Republican Party. If you’re a Republican, other Republicans will always give you the benefit of the doubt and more. If you’re a member of the Republican party, you will always get more rationalizations, excuses, and support for any of your questionable indiscretions than non-members will…just because you’re a Republican. Any legal problems? Don’t worry. GOP lawyers work nonstop on your behalf, recreating all kinds of legal precedents and reinterpretations to make sure you’re “not guilty.” Or at least, make sure you won’t get convicted or punished for your crimes.

Not so with Democrats.

Whatever any Democrat does or says can get magnified and skewed into a high crime, even if it isn’t. Pile-ons often occur, with various Republicans condemning the “guilty” Democrat and FOX NOOZ “reporting” on it, 24/7. The exaggeration grows into such hyperbolic condemnations that Democrats think the only way to stop it is to apologize. And they do, even if they’re not guilty of saying or doing anything wrong. So then their apology brands them as just another weak, wishy-washy, bed-wetting Democrat while the unethical Republican accusers remain strong and powerful. Unfortunately, Democrats still haven’t figured out that saying “I’m sorry” won’t make the shameful derision end. Thanks to the GOP machine, it will never end.

That’s how it works. Now just imagine what the Impeachment trials would have been like if Trump had been a Democrat. Of course, a Democratic Trump NEVER would have gotten into The Oval Office in the first place. But what if Trump HAD been a Democratic candidate who got elected to be President? Hmm…Imagine how the Republicans would vilify and humiliate a Democrat at an Impeachment trial…

Oh, wait. Don’t waste your time imagining, dear readers, because the Republicans have already done that. It’s already happened. Come, let us return to the Clinton years.

Because of the GOP’s take-no-prisoners M.O., (then) President Bill Clinton’s acquittal from his only Impeachment trial turned out a lot different than either one of Trump’s trials. Clinton lost his license to practice law, then had to deliver a public apology for his private actions. Moreover, his personal life not only took an embarrassing beating, but he remains forever stigmatized and haunted by the Republican’s inaccurate version of events.

POTUS 42’s problems began when prosecutor and die-hard Republican Kenneth Starr couldn’t find anything incriminating enough in the Whitewater Investigation. As Independent Counsel, however, Starr had expansive powers of prosecution and investigation. So anything else that he discovered could be used against Clinton. With help from Lewinsky’s “best friend” Linda Tripp, Starr dug up Clinton’s relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Then Starr went after him like an outhouse rat in a sugar cane field.

Starr confined Lewinsky in a hotel and threatened her with jail time if she spoke to the press. He also threatened to go after her mother if she didn’t “cooperate” in his investigation. His intimidation was so complete that he got Lewinsky to divulge the most salacious details of their intimacy. Then with the assistance of Brett Kavanaugh (yeah, THAT Brett Kavanaugh), Starr included them in his “Starr Report.” Despite the graphic nature of this personal information, he posted it on the web for all to see. That explains why, nearly 25 years later, many Americans still believe this misconception that Clinton got impeached because he lied under oath. They still believe that he lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. And yet, when you actually exam the evidence, it does seem that Clinton was telling the truth. He really didn’t have sex with her.

What everyone keeps forgetting is that Clinton used(and continued to use) the traditional, commonly accepted dictionary definition of sex that defines it as sexual intercourse — one that requires penile insertion in vagina. His repeated use of that definition offered proof that he really wasn’t having sex with Lewinsky. Their encounters didn’t sound like episodes from a full-blown love affair, either.

It sounded as though Clinton and his intern were in the throes of what the French call a “tocade.” That is, their encounters indicated a strong yet ephemeral attraction outside the confines of his marriage and involved doing anything and everything BUT sexual intercourse.

Starr’s report managed to awaken and offend the latent Puritan Ethic in so many citizens because there WAS no sexual intercourse between Clinton and Lewinsky. There was just a whole lot of other stuff going on that sounded too sexy or too gross for most people to process.

In fact, what they were doing to each other amounted to backseat foreplay — you know, the creative things teenagers do to each other in lover’s lanes so “ the girl won’t get pregnant.” And, wow, were they ever creative! No doubt his penis and her vagina were at the scenes of these “high crimes.” But there was no entry. Just a lot of bodily stimulation. Ooo, gross! Just writing about it all these years later gives me an icky feeling…and that was the whole point of Starr’s report.

In his efforts to catch Clinton in a lie when he wasn’t really lying, Starr made sure his explicit descriptions sounded so nasty-sexy that readers of his report would be disgusted. Then they’d forever associate their disgust with POTUS 42 and remember him as too horny to be a “good President.” And according to the court of public opinion, what William Jefferson Clinton did(or didn’t do) was so morally objectionable that he deserved to be impeached. Never mind that when Clinton asserted, “I did not have sex with that woman,” he actually was telling the truth and not lying under oath. After Starr and the rest of the Republicans gave him their smackdown, though, nobody could successfully defend him.

For example, the semen on Lewinsky’s blue dress — outside the vagina —never did prove that sexual intercourse had taken place. Everyone keeps forgetting that his semen was found on the dress, in the sink, and everywhere but in the vagina. But try saying that out loud with a straight face. You can’t. Most people can’t even discuss that among friends, or in private company. I’m old enough to remember how groundbreaking the stage production of “The Vagina Monologues” was simply because nobody dared say the word “vagina” in public back then. Today, in some counties, you still can’t say “penis” in front of a church or school.

Far worse for Clinton, though, was the online availability of this uncensored report. Children were logging on, then asking things like, “Mommy, what is oral sex? Is that like regular sex?” Parents all over the country resented having to explain such things to their offspring and projected their anger at Clinton. Shame on him!

So at Clinton’s impeachment, truth didn’t matter. It was all about humiliating and disgracing a sitting President, then excusing their Republican strategy by declaring they could impeach any President for any old reason they wanted. Like, if Trump had taken a dump in the Rose Garden during a press conference, they could have impeached him? No, that would be Unconstitutional…because Trump is a Republican. But impeaching a Democrat in The White House only requires a thirst for vengeance from the Republicans. And they’re always thirsty.

Contrast Clinton’s treatment at his Impeachment with the perpetual get-out-of-conviction card Trump got at his 2 Impeachment trials. Has anyone ever demanded Trump publicly apologize to Stormy Daniels or E. Jean? Of course not. And yet, Clinton still gets badgered for not apologizing to Monica Lewinsky, even after he already publicly apologized to everyone in America about things that never happened in his personal life.
No matter how much charitable work he will do, no matter how many books he will write, his reputation, along with his credibility and reliability, will be forever soiled — exactly what the Republicans had intended all along.

Not surprisingly, nothing was done was about Starr’s blatant overreach of his authority as Independent Counsel when he threatened Lewinsky and held her captive…or when he allowed confidential information in his report to appear on the Internet. Imagine the stink Republicans would have raised if Starr had been a Democrat going after a Republican President.

Whether or not you agree with my viewpoints, you’ll have to admit Clinton’s Impeachment trial and subsequent fall-out were a whole lot different than either one Trump faced.